Opposable Thumbs —

$60 for an expansion pack? Halo 3: ODST underwhelms

Halo 3: ODST began life as an expansion to Halo 3... and based on our retail …

Halo 3: ODST was created in around a year, with a smaller team than past Halo titles, and was originally conceived as an expansion for Halo 3. Later, ODST was turned into a full product, with a few additions to try to make it a little more worth it for fans of the series. Not only does the new title boast a full campaign that features co-op, but the game includes every multiplayer map ever released for Halo 3, and a few extra for good measure. Buying the $60 release also gets you access to the Halo: Reach beta, when it goes live at some future date. Finally, there's also the Firefight mode, which puts players in a number of settings and then throws wave after wave of enemies at them.

Those are a lot of new features to check out, so I invited a friend over, cracked open some beverages, and got ready to take part in what we were sure was going to be an epic experience. We had played the past Halo games together, spent numerous hours online and in co-op, and were ready for something new.

What went wrong?

Does anyone play Halo to wander around an empty city, searching for items to move the story forward? Of course not, but the hub concept is used in Halo 3: ODST, and while it doesn't add to the game, it does give the campaign an extra hour or so. That's great, because if players weren't forced to root around the city to find out where to go next or look for audio files that tell a side story, the campaign mode from the game would be around four hours long. In fact, on normal mode a friend and I beat the game in around four hours, meaning that without the tacked-on hub concept there would have only been around three hours of play time.

Jacking up the difficulty will, of course, add an hour or two, and if you search for all the audio of the side story then that will add another hour, but the actual core of the game—the missions—is incredibly anemic. If the game were arranged with one mission after the other in the manner of past Halo games, you'd get something you could beat on your lunch break. This game was made with a smaller team in under a year, and it shows; the methods used to stretch the experience are both unsatisfying and obvious.

I've since gone back to play the game again on Heroic difficulty in single-player, and I can see where the six-hour playthrough times are coming from. The padding added to get to that point is even more apparent when you don't have two people exploring the hub, however. Our advice: play through the game first in single-player, and then move on to co-op.

The game begins with a number of ODST dropping in their pods for a mission; the scene is very Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie) and is exhilarating. For soldiers with "Orbital Drop" in their name, you may be surprised to learn this is the only time they'll exhibit this behavior in the campaign. The story weaves into Halo 2, but doesn't seem very consequential; although you'll meet another alien race, they won't do much to actively participate in the proceedings. Due to events outside of your control, your squad has been split up, and it's your job to search the city of New Mombasa for clues as to what happened. You do this searching by wandering around and following the waypoints, helpfully provided to you by the city's AI, and when you find an artifact from your friends' adventures you get to move back in time and play the adventure directly.

The problem is that it's just no fun to roam around this desolate city, looking for these clues. It's boring, the environments seem bland, and searching for the next item to trigger an actual mission is nothing but filler. These areas may add an hour or more to the game, but it's not an hour you're going to enjoy. The way the city's AI interacts with you is nifty, since it changes signs and other background details in the city to help you find your way, but it's merely window dressing; it's yet another cool idea that doesn't go anywhere.

The missions themselves are made up of the standard firefights and vehicle sections, but they seemed very linear and, again, way too short. You're given two new weapons for this fight, including a machine gun and a pistol that zooms in and has some nice kick to it (sound familiar?) but mostly you'll be using the ordinance from Halo 3 and killing enemies from Halo 3, but in some new environments.

As for the music, there is nothing that breaks the atmosphere like randomly placed saxophone solos. You're supposed to be in a warzone, and it sounds like the softcore porn they show on Cinemax after midnight. During one battle we were treated to some of the cheesiest, squeedle-ridden guitar ever heard in a game. When music is good it adds to the flavor of the game in an almost subconscious way; this seemed like it was aiming for the satirical in places.

We were told that the game featured interesting things to do and see in co-op mode, but that's certainly not the case. In fact, co-op doesn't even fit in with the story; the game makes a point of giving you a sense of loneliness as you track down your team, and then when the actual game kicks in there's two or more of you. The co-op aspect of the game is slapped on top of the actual game, and would break the story and cinemas if we took things literally. You're basically one person, until you're suddenly a squad, and then you're one again. You never control anyone else in the actual squad of characters: one player is the rookie, and the others are an impossibility. If you play with three other players it's even worse. For a game that was built from the ground up to include co-op, it's odd that so little thought was given to how it fit into the story and the world. Having multiple people comb the hub level simply underscores how little there is to do there.

While I'm not really that big of a fan of Halo 3 (I beat the campaign on legendary once, and now only play with friends), and have no interest in buying ODST, I still think people bagging on the look of the engine to be ridiculous. I would put it at one of the best console engines this gen for one main reason that can be summed in one word: Color. The enemies aren't grey blobs on brown backdrops. Some games like Fallout pulled this off pretty well (although I have other problems with Fallout's engine), but it made GoW look nearly unplayably annoying for me.

As I said though, I have no intention of buying this. My game budget is tight and the only thing I'm going to be buying until possibly Bioshock 2 or Mass Effect 2 is going to be Brutal Legend. A 4 hour campaign and the same multiplayer I can already do just doesn't cut it.

Just to clarify: Halo ODST = Halo 3 multiplayer? Not playing as ODSTs on multiplayer maps, but playing as Spartans as if it were a Halo 3 disc in the tray?

I don't own Halo 3 but have been thinking of picking it up to play with some college friends who've spread across the country, and one easy purchase of ODST actually sounds pretty attractive compared to Halo 3 + buying all the map packs released over the past couple years.

@smartalco - agreed re color palettes. "Nearly unplayable" is exactly how I felt about GoW, and it didn't have anything to do with the weapons or the engine. Half the time I just didn't know what I was looking at.

There are two discs in the game. The ODST disc - which contains the Campaign story and Firefight mode - where you're playing as an ODST soldier. The "Multiplayer" disc is just the Halo 3 multiplayer with all the released DLC maps, and 3 news ones. You play as a Spartan in this multiplayer mode. Basically indistinguishable from Halo 3, and I presume you'll be playing with people who both have ODST and those who just have Halo 3 - providing they have the map packs.

I'm on the fence a bit for this one. I'm a fan of the Halo universe and storyline, and have never been all that great at the mulitplayer. I do have all the release maps so far, so there is very little new there for me. I fully expect that I'll dig the main and side stories, but wonder if I should cancel my completely paid pre-order and pick it up used later.

The review seems rather negative, all things considered. It doesn't help that a lot of the "new" additions to the formula seem to have been glossed over, which also makes one question the lack of value argument.

Anyway, what specifically didn't you like about the "overworld" bit? Reviews elsewhere seem to be fairly positive about the atmosphere; a nice diversion and pace change from the missions and all that.

Also, it would have been nice to read more about the firefight mode; a single paragraph that's mostly just criticising that you can't play it online seems a little redundant at this point. From what I've read elsewhere, the actual gameplay of it sounds like quite the hoot, no matter the lack of originality of that sort of game format.

While I'm not really that big of a fan of Halo 3 (I beat the campaign on legendary once, and now only play with friends), and have no interest in buying ODST, I still think people bagging on the look of the engine to be ridiculous. I would put it at one of the best console engines this gen for one main reason that can be summed in one word: Color. The enemies aren't grey blobs on brown backdrops. Some games like Fallout pulled this off pretty well (although I have other problems with Fallout's engine), but it made GoW look nearly unplayably annoying for me.

As I said though, I have no intention of buying this. My game budget is tight and the only thing I'm going to be buying until possibly Bioshock 2 or Mass Effect 2 is going to be Brutal Legend. A 4 hour campaign and the same multiplayer I can already do just doesn't cut it.

I think Halo 3 looks amazing graphically...when it's a screen grab. For some reason I just find Halo to play very choppily. It's not so much the look but how Halo 3 moves. It doesn't have the fluidity of games like Modern Warfare or Gears 2. It really bugs. I think Halo 3 is one of the most overrated games.

Halo3 is the only game that really tempts me to get a 360. I simply did love the music, atmosphere and the gameplay esp. the enemies working in teams of Halo1. Nothing better than stomping out the little remaining guys after you killed the Elite.

But 4h core gameplay is embarrassing. I had a similar experience with Heavenly Sword a really beautiful and atmoshperic game that suddenly was over. Am I the only one who would gladly do without all the coop bullshit and other window dressing in exchange for a decent sized single-player campain. Hell most games would be fine without a multiplayer mode as well. There are only a couple of games that should have one.

(Some really balanced FPS like Call of Duty but not every run-of-the mill shooter, racing games of course and fighters. (and RTS if there would exist some playable ones on console)

This has been on my rent list ever since this came out, not because I think it won't be fun ( it won't), but because they already announced Halo: Reach and that will have multiple Spartans! Pretty much making this game a week rental for me.

Wow what a useless review, anyone else notice how he would point out one item as a flaw then pick up something else thats practicly the same and praise it.

Its halo 3 1/2 basicly so why would we suddenly expect to see new creatures or have the world trown on it's head just ot make things different. The difference that this game had that got shrugged off so quickly was that these are regular men fighting the war and not a supersoilder spartan. However that didn't stop the complaints of it being the same game and why don't we get major features.

Set pieces pulled from past games - Yeah its in the same universe so why wouldn't we expect to see the same or similar props

Linear game play in missions - From my recollection all the Halo titles suffered from that. I remember having to go through a laundry list of tasks within a mission with maybe one or two occasions where i get to pick the order but besides that it was still linear with no getting around it.

Co-op that breaks the game's internal logic - apart from GoW, army of two and R6LV2 i can't think of any recent titles that actually worked with bringing co-op to be a fluid shift in story. However I will point out that those titles also suffered from idiot AIs who would need to be baby sat otherwise their death would mean a restart or going back to a checkpoint

graphics granted they probibly could been polished more but that would make for a whole lot more time and money spent on the game and possible glitches that could have been avoided all together by not fixing what isn't broken

Gameplay - I asked a few friends that played previous titles and we all agreeded that 4-6 hours seemed about the norm for halo and other game solo modes if you don't get stuck in any parts and that multiplayer is more of a selling point then solo length these days

and we all agreeded that 4-6 hours seemed about the norm for halo and other game solo modes

bullshit. in this case you and your friends should change your games. 8-15 hours seems to be the current standard from Uncharted to Call of Duty4. Call of Duty 4 is possibly one of the shortest on the other hand the campaign is so stuffed with action that this is understandable. Other games like Resident Evil, MGS4 took much longer.

But anything below 8 hours is an embarrassment. This only happened for me with Heavenly Sword, but it had the excuse that it was a very early game and still looked amazing so they had to do lots of work in the engine. ODST on the other hand took an existing engine and still only delivers 4 hours? That's pretty much inexcusable for a 60$ game.

When all of my fraternity brothers put their X-Boxes together and I came over, I was like, "Heh, kind of a console LAN party,"

They were, in bewilderment, "Land... party?"

When I yawned and declined to play and instead helped myself to some beer and a magazine, some of them thought I didn't like video games. "Oh no," I replied, "I love games. Play on my PC with my roommates all the time. I'm a bit spoiled." (Unreal Tournament 2003 and Warcraft III)

They thought I was talking about Solitaire and point-and-click adventure games (which do kick-ass, BTW).

Soon after, I heard someone make a comment how much better an FPS shooter was with a controller....

Originally posted by Dunlavy:Soon after, I heard someone make a comment how much better an FPS shooter was with a controller....

As a diehard Quake3/UT player back in the dark ages (and Marathon player before the mouse was an option in the even darker ages), I felt exactly the same way when Halo came out. No keyboard and mouse? What is this claptrap?

But as gaming became a casual hobby instead of a lifestyle choice, and as developers improved their understanding of the benefits and limitations of console controllers, I really took to it. In an MMO I want 12 mouse buttons and a fancy keyboard. In an FPS, I want to jump in quick and clickclack the trigger buttons.

I have to commend you on the review. There aren't too many folks out there who would pan a Halo game -- and the Ars review is the most negative one I've read. It's pretty refreshing to hear, actually (and I'm guessing that it's probably the most accurate review, as well). I'm sure the looming fanboy arguing will be a treat to endure...

Also, I appreciate you strongly calling out Microsoft (and Bungie) for releasing what seems to be a glorified expansion pack as a full-fledged retail game. It's a disappointing move, but not altogether surprising. Nevertheless, I'm glad someone went on record to condemn the action as opposed to glossing over it, or only mentioning it in passing.

Here's hoping that Halo 4 -- and you know there will be an official fourth game -- will reinvigorate the franchise from the stagnation that's plagued the series since 2004. ...In my opinion, of course.

Mo-one's actually surprised that this is just more of the same, yet another Yet Another Halo Title, right?

I haven't enjoyed any Halo game besides the Xbox original and I have zero interest in ODST (my interest was slightly higher than zero some months ago when it looked like the title might have made some significant change in direction for the series). But I do think a lot of criticisms levelled against ODST are quite childish:

*Halo 3 didn't look that good when it first came out, people didn't seem to care it wasn't the world's prettiest game (Like its predecessors).

*Halo 3 takes maybe 6 hours to complete solo on Legendary, at least it did in my one session playing the game, people didn't seem to care it was so short (Like its predecessors).

*Halo 3 was basically 100% completely linear, people didn't seem to care it didn't provide open world environments (Like its predecessors).

*Halo 3 had a mediocre story at best, the little squeaky grunts were the only characters with some semblance of character, the cutscenes were barely passable, people didn't seem to care it was a pretty poor attempt at story-telling (Like its predecessors).

So compared to Halo 3, ODST should be maybe one point less in terms of score, and that's for random sax solos. I say maybe, because that sounds like it might be retarded enough to be entertaining. It seems like people berate ODST to some extent simply because it's not the game they wished it would have been (Halo 4 zomg) when it was plainly obvious what we would be getting. Halo 3 engine, small team, short development time. Seems like if anyone who loved Halo 3 had any concept of reality, they would be thoroughly impressed by ODST.

but where are you paying $60? pretty much everywhere here in the UK the game's selling at £10 under the usual new game price (£29 rather than £39). not saying that makes it a bargain, but it's definitely not what you'd expect if this was being billed as a full sequel in the halo series (i think halo wars, for example, was £44 in a lot of places).

Just to clarify: Halo ODST = Halo 3 multiplayer? Not playing as ODSTs on multiplayer maps, but playing as Spartans as if it were a Halo 3 disc in the tray?

It IS the Halo 3 disc in the tray. It's just a re-release of the Halo 3 multiplayer with all the content released thus far and three new maps. That's good value if you don't own the content already, but if you've kept up with the content the only thing you're paying for is the three new maps.

quote:

I fully expect that I'll dig the main and side stories, but wonder if I should cancel my completely paid pre-order and pick it up used later.

$60 is a lot of money, and there are a ton of great games on the way. Why not give it a rent, beat the campaign, and see if the three new maps and Firefight are worth the full price.

quote:

no one bought halo for the single player the first time. what makes you think they will buy it for it the 4th time?

I understand that Halo 3 is a popular multiplayer game, but remember the only new content in this game is three new maps. So if you're a Halo 3 fan with the existing map packs buying this for multiplayer, you're paying $20 per new map.

quote:

Heathen! Death is too good for you!

Hey, I liked the music to past Halo games. I still have the Halo 2 soundtrack around here somewhere. Those themes are classic.

At one point when we were in the hub map my friend remarked that he thought we stumbled into an episode of Baywatch Nights when the sax came from nowhere.

quote:

I'm in it for the multi-player so hope I'll get more value out of it.

If you own Halo 3, and you're buying this for the multiplayer, you just paid for the same thing twice, excluding the three maps and Firefight mode. Firefight is fun, but not $60 fun.

quote:

*Halo 3 takes maybe 6 hours to complete solo on Legendary, at least it did in my one session playing the game, people didn't seem to care it was so short (Like its predecessors).

Imagine if two hours of that involved you simply walking from one mission to the next. If ODST were six hours of action, it would be one thing, but it isn't. It's an hour of the nearly-empty hub world, an hour of looking for audio logs, and maybe 2-4 hours of actual game play.

it's a funny little title... it's hard to say that i would pay $60 if i weren't going to use the whole thing. but people paid 60 for Halo 3 and this has more in it than came with that game. That said, it only has more because it comes with the best part of the other game.

i could use another multi player disc, i have 2 consoles and it would be nice to not have to play split screen all the time. That and i am getting the game with a $20 gift cert so that helps out a bit.

My friend is a fanboy, he preordered it the moment you could get Sgt Johnson, limited edition. I was kind of shocked, I told him I wouldn't pay this much for a firefight mode and he gave me this speech about how it has new weapons and bleh bleh. He buys every map pack on everything too.

If there was proper ODST multiplayer I'd consider it. I just don't like the *feel* of playing as a Spartan: everything just feels too floaty. I was very much looking forward to some nimble, old fashioned deathmatch.

In an FPS, I want to jump in quick and clickclack the trigger buttons.

hmm the controller is acceptable in single-player campaign. Sure you feel a bit like a special needs gamer compared to a mouse but its ok, the difficulty has been adjusted to it.

But the controller completely takes all fun out of multiplayer. Most of the tactics learned in ET or UT are completely useless and its too much down to luck. In ET I could sneak up on a group of people and headshot two of them before they noticed me. With the controller everything is a wild running around and bullet spamming. Not much fun.

That's not fair it was a good-looking game. Perhaps not the technically most advanced one but it came out 2007. Without the Unreal3 engine it would be one of the best-looking games on 360 by then. Besides it had a very unique style which was quite nice. But now we have 2009. So to criticize the lack of improvement is IMO very ok esp. since the review didn't focus on it.

quote:

*Halo 3 takes maybe 6 hours to complete solo on Legendary

which was a big negative point mentioned by most reviews (and those I read said 8 hours) And this is significantly shorter. Normally second games using the same engine, weapons, enemies etc. should improve on story line and game length IMO.

quote:

*Halo 3 was basically 100% completely linear,

Did you read a different review? That the levels are linear was mentioned but not overly critical. The review did criticize the non-linear hub world though. So this is completely besides the point.

quote:

*Halo 3 had a mediocre story at best

Really? I plaid Halo1 and I thought story and presentation were very nice. Not really Pulitzerprice but it fit together nicely and was presented in an amazing way. The atmosphere build up by the trailers of Halo3 was superb as well. (Trailers for Halo3 almost got me to buy a 360)

<i>Did you read a different review? That the levels are linear was mentioned but not overly critical.</i>

Yes, I read the actual review, you read something else. The linearity issue was addressed as part of a list of reasons as to why ODST is supposedly inferior to previous Halo games (If you were paying attention you'd have noticed that my basic argument was, from this and other reviews, criticisms of ODST can equally be applied to the other Halo games):

<i>The game doesn't use all the enemies from the Halo canon, you don't get the powers of Master Chief, you have very little in the way of new or unique abilities, and <b>the battles and levels are incredibly linear.</b></i>

Anyway, thanks for attempting to address my previous comments point by point, that was really worthwhile, but judging from your reading comprehension, or lack thereof, I can't really engage with you on any meaningful level. But I will point out that you made an excellent comeback to one of my criticisms of the Halo series: You successfully countered the claim that the narrative is weak by pointing out that Halo 3 had a good advert, so good you almost bought a 360 as a result. I supposed the ads form the bulk of your awareness of the Halo 3 narrative, since apparently your knowledge of Halo 3's duration is limited to what you have read, and we've already established you're not so hot with words. Or with making sound hardware purchasing decisions, if adverts hold that much sway with you.

Originally posted by twinberettas:Did you read a different review? That the levels are linear was mentioned but not overly critical.

Yes, I read the actual review, you read something else. The linearity issue was addressed as part of a list of reasons as to why ODST is supposedly inferior to previous Halo games (If you were paying attention you'd have noticed that my basic argument was, from this and other reviews, criticisms of ODST can equally be applied to the other Halo games):

The game doesn't use all the enemies from the Halo canon, you don't get the powers of Master Chief, you have very little in the way of new or unique abilities, and the battles and levels are incredibly linear.

Anyway, thanks for attempting to address my previous comments point by point, that was really worthwhile, but judging from your reading comprehension, or lack thereof, I can't really engage with you on any meaningful level. But I will point out that you made an excellent comeback to one of my criticisms of the Halo series: You successfully countered the claim that the narrative is weak by pointing out that Halo 3 had a good advert, so good you almost bought a 360 as a result. I supposed the ads form the bulk of your awareness of the Halo 3 narrative, since apparently your knowledge of Halo 3's duration is limited to what you have read, and we've already established you're not so hot with words. Or with making sound hardware purchasing decisions, if adverts hold that much sway with you.